tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 28, 2016 11:38pm-12:01am EDT
journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, tuesday campaign finance reporter for "usa today," talks to us about the antitrust super pac's, locations of republicans and democrats highest own nations, and funding by supreme court interest groups. discusses age discrimination in employment and editorial-page editor fred hiatt talks about the sitdown with presidential candidate donald trump and post campaign editorials on 2016. now, the debate between the democratic candidates for maryland's open seat in the u.s. senate. donna edwards and chris van hollen talked about criminal justice reform, u.s.-cuba
relations, and the transpacific partnership agreement during this hour-long debate. ins is courtesy of wjz-tv baltimore. ♪ >> good evening. i am denise koch. jz is broadcasting forums so you can hear directive from the candidates. today, candidates running for united states senate discuss the issues. we take you to rick carter, who will moderate this forum. rick: welcome. and i form is brought to you by baltimore, theof vz tv.ore sun, and us at w all the candidates who qualified
for the ballot and pulled at 10% or greater were invited. the candidates are donna edwards and chris van hollen. questions tonight will be posed by our panel. cotton, dr. and director of the schaeffer center green,lic policy, edgar editorial-page editor for the baltimore sun, and columnist dan rogers. -- vic carter.er the order was determined by coin toss. candidates cannot interrupt each other. time limits for each question is 90 seconds. the timekeepers will warn candidates when they have 30 seconds left. one minute will be allowed for rebuttal, but the moderator will have the discretion to drop
rebuttals for time later in the debate. each candidate will be given one minute for closing statements. first to our opening statements. ladies and gentlemen, mr. chris van hollen. rep. van hollen: it is great to be here. this is about delivering real results to hard-working maryland families. that is what i have done since my first days in the maryland legislature when i teamed up to beat the nra and pass gun safety legislation, worked with the waterboard to prohibit oil drilling around the chesapeake bay, and with a pta to reduce fundings -- boost fundings for maryland schools. i have taken the fight to the united states congress. i once again led the fight to protect social security and medicare. i know when to fight and i know when to find common ground. we cannot allow division in washington to stop all progress for working families. i never believed it was enough to be just a vote or only a vote
or only a voice. resultse in delivering for maryland families, and that makes all the difference. vic: thank you very much. now, donna edwards. rep. edwards: maryland is a state with so much going for it. we have great colleges and universities, including historically black colleges and universities. for too many marylanders, they are falling out of the middle class and struggling to get in. i know something about that struggle. that is why i am running for the united states senate, to give a voice to that worker who wants to take a paid day off because a child gets sick and they don't want to lose their job because of that. for the young woman who makes $.78 on the dollar and knows she should be paid the same as a man doing the same work. for the young woman and man who might have messed up, but they deserve a second chance through education and opportunities to
rebuild their lives and take a difference in their communities. and ourthose seniors veterans who paid into social security believing that elected officials in front of the doors and behind the doors should protect their social security and not bargain it away. these are the people i fight for. vic: now to the questioning. the first question will be posed by dan roberts. recentiven the terrorist attacks, what should the u.s. to combat the threat of terraces of -- the terrorism, and we you commit u.s. ground troops to combat isis in iraq and syria? rep. edwards: i think it is important for the united states more of an advisory role to our european partners, especially in terms of intelligence sharing and
intelligence gathering to be able to root out domestic and homegrown terrorism. with respect to isis, i don't believe it is appropriate for the united states to add ground troops to iraq and syria theater. we are making tremendous progress in iraq and syria on the ground with iraqi forces, with kurdish forces. today withced just the killing of a top isis leader. i think it is important for us in the united states to protect our domestic security to make sure we have communications among all communities, so that we are participants in our own security and to make sure our european partners have the ability to have the information which we gather and share that information so they can better protect their interests on the ground. vic: any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: my heart and
all our hearts go out to the people of brussels. i have been involved in foreign policy issues since i worked on the senate foreign relations committee. we were involved by focusing on this region of the world. we need to do everything possible to provide allies with the weapon systems and help they need to roll back and stop and ultimately destroy isis. we see what is happening as a result of isis presence around the world. i do not believe that we should put american combat forces on the ground. i strongly oppose the decision to put american combat forces on the ground in iraq, and we are still seeing to this day the consequences of that bad decision, including the rise of isis. the iraqi provide forces and kurdish forces with the training and weapons they need in order to push back against isis.
we will succeed in this battle. we will be firm and stand with our european allies and friends in the middle east. vic: any rebuttal? next question from andy to mr. van hollen. debate ofrecent whether apple should be forced to help the fbi a mock a iphone use a killer in san bernardino has reignited the debate between privacy and security. you think our laws set an appropriate balance? do you think they should be adjusted? rep. van hollen: you are right. we need to strike that balance in that debate, i come down on the side of protecting privacy in the broader debate. in respect to the situation with apple, the question is whether or not we can't find a way to simply go into that particular thece without compromising other apple devices around the world. i am looking for opportunities to, number one, get the
information off that phone, if possible, without compromising others, but it is very important that we not have a system that essentially allows other actors around the world to break into all of our devices and all of our phones. this is important debate. so far, the courts have come down in the right place. i think this is one of the most difficult balances that we have in a democracy, especially since 9/11 . bouncing our first amendment rights and privacy interests versus our interests in making sure we are secure. i tend to fall on the side of apple in terms of protecting privacy. i worry that apple might be able andnlock one device therefore provide the entry into all of our devices. resources, and i am confident of the resources of the federal government to be able to find what it needs in
that device, even in the most recent days. we have heard we are getting closer to that and i would err on the side of privacy in this debate, but i think it is a very difficult balance to strike and is one we wrestle with all the time. in my time in congress, i do generally stood on the side of privacy when it concerns these security interests, recognizing that we have to protect all of our security and we need to give the resources to the federal government to do that. vic: thank you. any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: no. again, i think this balance is important, but there are ways that we can protect our security without compromising our privacy and i think that balance has been well struck in many of the laws that have been passed by congress. in this latest incident, we need
to continue to find a way to see if we cannot get information off a particular phone without compromising the privacy of all phones. vic: thank you. the: do you believe that was a goodh iran deal for the u.s., the west, and israel, or did president obama give too much away? rep. edwards: i have been very supportive and privileged to be ine been participating discussions with the white house and the president of the united states over the course of the past couple of years leading to this deal. i feel confident now, having read the deal and express to support for it, that it was the right thing for the united states. i believe it was the right thing for our national security interests, for the security interests of israel, the region,
and the world. i believe that over the course of this next decade, i think that we have important point of leverage with respect to iran, reducing their nuclear capacity, making sure that they don't have the capacity overnight, almost, and within a couple months of building a nuclear device and causing great having in the world and an escalation of nuclear proliferation in that ision, and i think it important that we have iran, who is a bad actor in so many ways. we have seen that in most recent days. they are a bad actor with reduce capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. i believe that it's in the national security interests of the united states. i came out in support early of the agreement, and i believe it will ultimately make the world
safer. rep. van hollen: yes, i strongly believe that the iran nuclear dream and -- nuclear agreement will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the best way to do that is by reducing their enrichment capacity. it is important to remember how we got there, and that was why imposing strong economic sanctions against iran which is what brought them to the table. not all of us supported although sanctions which succeeded. it is important as we proceed to make sure that we hold iran accountable. they do have a history of cheating on agreements in the past. yesterday, the president announced sanctions against iran for a number of breaches, including their ballistic missile testing program, as well as their cyberattacks on the united states. i stand with the president in taking that action and we need to be vigilant, to make sure we
respond to any kind of iranian effort to violate those other agreements for the iran agreement. if they get the sense that we are willing to look the other way on ballistic missile testing or look the other way on cyberattacks or look the other way on their aggression in the middle east, then they will be tempted to cheat as they have in the past. my view on this is don't trust, but verify. it was the right way to go for the security of the united states, our allies and israel. now we need to make sure we hold them accountable at every opportunity. edwards, you have an opportunity for rebuttal. rep. edwards: it is really important to hold iran accountable and i would add to that one of the things we have seen over the last several days with the announcement by the attorney general of taking action in law enforcement with andect to the cyberattacks
moving towards additional sanctions and enforcing those with respect to the ballistic missiles development, that we see that the president meant what he said when he announced the iran nuclear deal. that is that that would not stop the united states from continuing to enforce against iran in other areas in which there were violations. i believe that will also be true with respect to the iran nuclear deal. vic: thank you. next question comes from dan rodrick's and goes to mr. van hollen. dan: president obama made history by becoming the first president in 60 years to visit cuba. would you support lifting the u.s. economic embargo against cuba and taking other steps to soften cold war policies? rep. van hollen: i would. i think the embargo has been a historic mistake and i salute
the president for his opening to cuba. i am pleased to have played a small role in this effort because my constituent, allen gross, had been held prisoner in cuba for over five years and we had to make sure we earned his release so that we could open that new chapter of relations with cuba. i worked very hard and met with the present multiple times to secure that release and negotiate. i was proud to be asked by the president to accompany allen to havana tojudy, bring allen gross home. that was the icebreaker that allowed us to proceed with the change in relations. to embargo has only served strengthen the hand of the castro brothers. it did not isolate the regime. they are doing fine. it isolated the people of cuba. ae castro brothers survived
whole series of american presidents. the far better approach is to ,ngage with the cuban people engage with the space. hopefully that will open up pluralism and democracy in cuba. it will not happen overnight, with the policies of the past did not achieve their results. rep. edwards: thank you for the question. prior to coming to the house of representatives, i spent a decade at the arkham foundation, a small family foundation, for about the last 25 years. , we slatedadership and that with cuba pressed united states into ending the embargo and developing a diplomatic
relationship with cuba. my involvement in this area it goes back a decade and a half. i believe that the key to opening in cuba and really making a significant change their is the ability for american citizens to travel back and forth, to exchange our , andres and our education i'm pleased to have been able to support these efforts coming to congress and certainly now. i think we are seeing a new day and i think this next generation , both of cubans and cubans americans that are seeing our approach to the island nations in a different way, and i think the president should be applauded for making this very bold step, but clearly there is action that congress has to take affirmatively to list the embargo, to allow us to travel freely to cuba and to allow us to do what we did at the arkham foundation, which is to have a cuban national baseball team
come over to play the orioles. [laughter] vic: thank you. any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: i was pleased to see the president's visit continued to open up that space. i had a chance to visit cuba three times over the last five years as part of the effort to get allen gross out of prison, and each time i saw a growing optimism among the cuban people. the change was coming. it was great to see the excitement in cuba in the president's last visit. i do believe that the president is right, that as part of our efforts around the world, it is important that we not just talk to our friends. it is important that we engage with others who may want to do us harm. after all, ronald reagan called the soviet union the evil empire and sat down with them. i think the president has given us an example in respect to negotiations with iran as well as the opening with cuba.
that smart diplomacy and foreign policy can engage using change not just through the use of force. vic: our next question comes from andy greene. andy: do free-trade deals like the transpacific partnership helped or hurt american workers, be takensteps should for those it does this place? rep. edwards: i'm concerned. before i came in to congress, and when you look at the history of trade deals, what you are talking about, nafta, or the most recent agreements with korea and peru were columbia. although steals my opponent voted for. -- all of those deals my opponent voted for. we have seen a hemorrhaging of jobs in this country.
we have lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. companies like bp solar in maryland that lost jobs to a sia. solo cups to general motors that lost jobs overseas because of our engagement in trade deals. my standard for trade is that it has to benefit and support american workers, american manufacturing, and that it must laws,t the other environmental safety and other laws. i believe that other trade laws we have been involved in do not do that. the transpacific partnership, which i have been trying to make that are for quite some time, it does not meet the mark. i would urge my opponent, who has supported nine of the last 11 trade deals, to not continue going down the track that trades away american jobs. rep. van hollen: thank you.
like with any agreement, you need to look at a particular agreement and ask yourself the question, is this good for the american economy? is this good for american workers? is this good for american wages? the ttp did not meet that standard for a variety of reasons, including allowing mine countries to under environmental protection laws, and i opposed the fast track and i opposed the previous multilateral trade agreements. you have to look at each of these on their own merits. tom proud in the selection have been endorsed by the united auto workers. we are very interested in expanding manufacturing in maryland. we have a manufacturing plant in washington county. we need to bring more manufacturing here. have theird to support as was